We have been reading a lot about the the proposed GIG WORKERS BILL - but where is it? Why don't the Public have sight of the proposed Bill - We can also provide INPUTS on how to improve the said BILL, and also HIGHLIGHT what important area was missed out. Now, it looks like the proposed Bill is being circulated to certain groups only, including the EMPLOYERS of Gig Workers, but not to ALL Gig Workers themselves, who will be most affected by this Bill? One very important aspect, is the security of employment of Gig Workers preventing wrongful dismissal, and also the right of GIG Workers to form Trade Unions or Associations to represent Gig Workers, and have the fight to fight for BETTER rights.
In Malaysia, of late, some Bills are tabled and then speedily passed GIVING no time for the collection and submission of feedback, and that is BAD, MP also have no time to get the feedback from Gig Workers in their very own constituency, much needed for them to best debate in Parliament before the Bill is speedily passed, with FLAWS and other inadequacies.
Gig Economy Platforms like Bolt, FastGig, foodpanda, GoGet, Grab, Halo Delivery, Kiddocare, Lalamove, and ShopeeFood were CONSULTED by the Government and they had their chance to provide INPUT to the GIG WORKERS BILL - but what about the GIG WORKERS themselves - who are Malaysian citizens and VOTERS?
Does Anwar Ibrahim's government also do not care for the feedback of ordinary people including GIG WORKERS themselves - who need time to study the DRAFT, discuss and produced needed input.
'WE KNOW BEST" attitude of government is NOT GOOD, and is show of disrespect to GIG Workers and Malaysian citizens - and, once passed, it takes even LONGER for it to be amended, and as result Gig Workers may have to suffer the failings of Bad Law. CONSULT the people, all people, not just EMPLOYERS or certain groups...
Improvements to the Proposed Gig Workers Bill are Necessary to Ensure the Welfare of Gig Workers
25 Mar 2025 2:24 pm
The Malaysian Bar welcomes the Gig Workers Bill 2025 (“the Bill”) as an important step towards providing a clear legal framework for the growing gig economy. Introducing a statutory definition for gig workers and mechanisms for dispute resolution, income protection, and social security contributions represents progress in addressing long-standing regulatory gaps in this sector. However, we note that industry stakeholders, including platform providers, gig workers and experts on this matter, have raised several concerns over the Bill in its existing form,1 and we believe that further refinement of the Bill, taking into account the concerns raised by the stakeholders, is necessary to achieve a more inclusive and clearly defined framework for regulating the welfare of gig workers. Given the significance of this Bill and due to the high number of gig workers in the economy, we would like to propose the following recommendations to the Ministry of Human Resources (“MOHR”) for inclusion in the Bill before it is tabled at the next Parliamentary session:
- Clear the ambiguity in the
application of the Social Security Organisation (“SOCSO”) (Pertubuhan
Keselamatan Sosial, “PERKESO”) contribution provisions: The
Bill should include how SOCSO contribution requirements will apply to
gig workers engaged across multiple platforms. In this regard, MOHR
needs to provide clear and comprehensive provisions within the Bill on
how this contribution will be made by either the platforms or the
workers themselves;
- Impact on industry operations:
Platform providers have raised concerns about the proposed consultative
council’s functions and powers regarding potential limitations on
competition and innovation, which could lead to higher service costs for
consumers.2 Therefore, we suggest that further elaboration
on the functions of this council is needed, and the powers of the
council need to be specified to ensure the practicability of this
suggested framework, while also protecting the interests of gig workers
and balancing the interests of other stakeholders in the industry;
- Look into the strict prohibition on deductions from income, tips and rewards:
The Bill provides strict prohibition with limited exceptions on the
deductions of gig workers’ incomes, tips and rewards. At the outset,
the application of this provision is seen as rigid and vague. As stated
in the Bill, deductions can only be made to rectify overpayments, as
specifically authorised by this Bill, other applicable legislation, or
with the approval of the Director General as defined in the Bill. It
fails to consider practical scenarios such as when a gig worker
inadvertently overcharges a consumer or enters into commercial
agreements with platform providers, such as those pertaining to loans
and rentals. Thus, we propose that further clarification of the
implementation of this provision be expanded in the Bill, which includes
clearly defining the Director General’s discretionary powers, and that
the system itself be made more practical to avoid unnecessary
bureaucratic red tape;
- Ensure clarity of regulatory framework between ministries: There
is a potential regulatory overlap between MOHR and the Transport
Ministry in regulating e-hailing and p-hailing drivers. Currently,
e-hailing and p-hailing services are regulated under a framework of
laws, including the Land Public Transport Act 2010 and the Commercial
Vehicles Licensing Board Act 1987. This overlap could create confusion
and inconsistencies, especially when grievances arise. Thus, the Bill
should draw clear jurisdiction lines between MOHR and the Transport
Ministry to provide clarity and ensure a coherent and effective
regulatory framework for the e-hailing and p-hailing services, and the
broader gig economy; and
- Distinguish between gig workers and freelancers: The Bill treats gig workers who are platform-based (for example, those in the e-hailing and p-hailing sectors) and non-platform-based workers (other freelancers) in similar terms, which overlooks the nuances and differences in their work experiences. While both categories operate outside conventional employment structures, their working conditions, income patterns, and levels of control can vary substantially. Thus, we suggest that it is necessary to include provisions in the Bill that address these distinctions, ensuring that the legislation effectively caters to the diverse needs and realities of both gig workers in the e-hailing and p-hailing sectors as well as other freelancers, rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach.
Given our recommendations to improve the Bill, we further believe that it is crucial at this juncture to conduct a comprehensive nationwide feasibility study involving all relevant stakeholders3 to ensure the Bill’s effectiveness and to minimise potential undesired knock-on effects on the 3.09 million gig workers in Malaysia.4
The Malaysian Bar supports efforts to ensure fair and balanced protections for all stakeholders in the gig economy. We are open to engaging with MOHR and industry stakeholders to refine the Bill before it is tabled at the next Parliamentary session.
Mohamad Ezri b Abdul Wahab
President
Malaysian Bar
25 March 2025
1 “Gig Workers Bill needs to be refined, say platforms”, Free Malaysia Today, 27 February 2025.
2 “Gig industry players raise concerns over draft Gig Workers’ Bill”, The Star, 27 February 2025.
3 “Gig economy platforms welcome refinements to Malaysia’s Gig Workers Bill”, Astro Awani, 4 March 2025.
4 “Gig economy expands in 2024 amid push for increased worker protection”, The Edge Malaysia, 29 December 2024.
Gig economy platforms welcome refinements to Malaysia’s Gig Workers Bill

No comments:
Post a Comment